Page 32 - CLT102620

32 ¦ OCTOBER 26, 2020 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

motion, and defendant appealed. Defendants dant argued that she was a Connecticut resident at
argued the apportionment complaint sought to the time of service but was served as a non-resident
implicate municipal immunity, and that the first by process sent to the New York apartment she had
exception employs a standard of negligence, re- vacated prior to service. After reviewing the evi-
gardless of the recklessness complaint. The court dence, the court found that even if she had switched
agreed, and reversed the finding of the trial court. from her New York apartment to her mother’s resi-
dence in Connecticut by the dates of service, defen-
dant was still subject to service as a non-resident
SUPERIOR COURT whose last known address was in New York. After

the accident, defendant moved from Connecticut to
the New York apartment where the letter had been
BUSINESS TORTS sent. She had not changed her driver’s license prior
to service. Therefore, the court held that plaintiff
Court Denied Defendant’s Motion to had proved that defendant was a non-resident who
Strike Plaintiff’s Tortious Interference was served at her last known address where process
Claims reasonably would be received by her.

CASE: Novafund Advisors LLC v. Sandler, O’Neill & Partners, Defendant’s Objection to Plaintiff’s
L.P. Withdrawal of Offer of Compromise
COURT: Stamford/Norwalk J.D. at Stamford Sustained
DOC. NO.: CV-20-6045528
COURT OPINION BY: Krumeich
DATE: October 02, 2020 • PAGES: 9 CASE: Marquez v. Chiluka
COURT: Stamford/Norwalk J.D. at Stamford
Plaintiff alleged that defendant tortiously inter- DOC. NO.: CV-19-6043682
fered with its business relationships with pro- COURT OPINION BY: Genuario
spective investors to provide capital for a private DATE: September 30, 2020 • PAGES: 5
credit fund being raised by Capitala Group, and
tortiously interfered with its contractual relation- This lawsuit arose out of a 2017 car accident and
ship with Capitala. Defendant moved to strike this opinion discussed whether plaintiff was al-
all counts and the court denied the motion. The lowed to unilaterally and without the court’s per-
court found that plaintiff satisfied the elements mission withdraw an offer of compromise. Plain-
of claims for tortious interference by alleging a tiff filed an offer of compromise in May 2020, and
conspiracy between defendant and Capitala to the next day defendant was granted an extension
fraudulently induce plaintiff to enter into the to respond until August 2020. In July, plaintiff
agreement to act as an exclusive placement agent filed a withdrawal of the offer, but did not file a
for the private credit fund under false pretenses. motion for permission to do so. Defendant ob-
This induced plaintiff to expend considerable jected. The court held that pursuant to a legisla-
time and effort marketing the fund under circum- tive enactment, absent good cause such as lack of
stances that hindered its efforts and deprived it authority, mistake or change in circumstances, the
of fees and foreseeable business opportunities. time frames cannot be unilaterally altered by one
Therefore, the court denied defendant’s motion. of the parties. Therefore, the court sustained de-
fendant’s objection to the withdrawal of the offer.

CIVIL PROCEDURE CIVIL PROCEDURE •

Court Found Defendant was Properly MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
Served as a Non-Resident
Court Held That Statute Allowed for
Extension Of Statute Of Limitations In
CASE: Gasparini v. Mena Lack Of Informed Consent Lawsuit
COURT: Stamford/Norwalk J.D. at Stamford
DOC. NO.: CV-19-6044050
COURT OPINION BY: Krumeich
DATE: October 07, 2020 • PAGES: 10 CASE: Ligouri v. Sabbarese
COURT: Danbury J.D.
Plaintiff sued defendant following a car accident. DOC. NO.: CV-18-6026710
Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of personal COURT OPINION BY: D’Andrea
jurisdiction. The court denied the motion. Defen- DATE: October 01, 2020 • PAGES: 19

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune